Mega Thread Port Forum General AFL Thread Part 21

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Am I the only one who thought both Robinson and Rioli were 50/50 calls and probably about right in the end?
Depends if you have explicitly, legally and unequivocally stated that protecting the head is a major reason for rule changes.
 
I thought the Mitch Robinson one was example 1a of why they bought the rule in many years ago. It was to protect the head of the man bending down to pick up the ball who is defenceless. The fact it only got a week shows the AFL is losing site of its own rule changes.
 
I thought the Mitch Robinson one was example 1a of why they bought the rule in many years ago. It was to protect the head of the man bending down to pick up the ball who is defenceless. The fact it only got a week shows the AFL is losing site of its own rule changes.

Byron Pickett got 6 games for bumping James Begley in a similar manner.
 
You can't brace and brain a dude with his head over the ball, it's been like that for a long time. If Robinson had clean KO'd Duursma he'd have had the book thrown at him.

I'm not sure about the Rioli one though, he was contesting a mark. He has to be allowed to fly for it, it's not like he lined him up, he ran straight at the ball. Rowell going back with the flight like that is brave, but dumb.
 
You can't brace and brain a dude with his head over the ball, it's been like that for a long time. If Robinson had clean KO'd Duursma he'd have had the book thrown at him.

I'm not sure about the Rioli one though, he was contesting a mark. He has to be allowed to fly for it, it's not like he lined him up, he ran straight at the ball. Rowell going back with the flight like that is brave, but dumb.
It's so close to the aerial equivalent of the Mackay contest last year.
 
The Rioli one was much worse than the Robinson one IMO.

Duursma honestly did more to initiate that contact than Robinson did. Robinson didn't do much more than brace himself. If it was a less floggish player we probably wouldn't be so up in arms about it.

Rioli on the other hand flew wildly and dangerously into a contest and only avoided ending Rowell's career by pure dumb luck. That decision is the most egregious example of 'the Tribunal judges the outcome, not the action' I've ever seen. Far less deliberate and dangerous actions have copped far harsher penalties purely because the outcome happened to be worse.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Is it just me or did the umpire not call stand and the bulldogs player was just jumping up akd down and moving side to side on the mark without getting penalised?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top